To be honest, I had never heard or read the word "supertall" before discovering SkyscraperCity. It is a word that is used frequently and carelessly at times here, and obviously has different meanings to different people.

If you had to draw a line in the sand [no pun intended Dubai] what would you consider "supertall" and why?

Not because I think Dubai's construction boom is the best thing since air conditioning, but that it is the first very tall building in a long time that will not just beat the current record by a small margin, but will shatter Taipei 101's benchmark. To me this huge leap in height is a good place to distinguish the next generation of tall buildings.

Ha! It's all relative based on the city you live in and what period you live in.

For Atlanta today, a supertall is obviously anything over 1,000' since we have one. About 20 years ago a supertall would have been anything over 700' since we had one then too.

50 years ago, the tallest buiding in the SE was the little ole L&C Tower in Nashville at a massive 409'. And yet when I was a little kid and went to the top of it, it DID appear massive because I'd never seen another building that big and it stuck up all alone. So at that time 400' would have been a supertall.

Eventually as more cities cross the 1,000 foot line, then I would venture 1,500 would be the next threshold for a supertall.

i picked 350 meters, although IMO, it's properly 335 meters, or 1100 feet...and it needs a significant spire, or in better terms, "awesomeness presence of height."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Fusion

... Burj Dubai is the World's First "Supertall"

Not because I think Dubai's construction boom is the best thing since air conditioning, but that it is the first very tall building in a long time that will not just beat the current record by a small margin, but will shatter Taipei 101's benchmark. To me this huge leap in height is a good place to distinguish the next generation of tall buildings.

Empire State Building was first...while "shatter" was a subjective term, it clearly and fairly eclipsed the Chrysler Building's height (1086 lower roof vs. 1046 spire,) but the ESB also had the "functional spire" (rooms up to the top, heigher observation deck, now only used for special occasions) up to 1250.

then it went unrivaled for 40 years.

-

__________________
"To be fair to LSyd, he does have an eye for graffiti, dereliction and stray souls."

Buildings over 250m are "supertall" habbital buildings but the term usually relates to 300m+ and i think that is fair considering the boom in height today.

__________________

Sec. 31 But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders, and to how small a part provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross itself to the prejudice of others. - John Locke

I think it all depends on where the building is. For example, if they built a building in a city which was around 100m but double the height of the previous tallest, then you could probably call it a supertall.

thats not a poll question, as there is a clear and obvious architectural definition for this.
Although this definition is a bit old, as construciton methods have changed.

Usually supertalls are skyscrapers above the "common" higt of higrises that are up to 250 meters.
Thats because above that, you need special, indiviual structural systems, that are usually unique for each of that buildings...e.g. John Hankock with its famous corss bracings, sears with its bundled tube/christams tree system, or look at SWFC now.

Below the 250 m, the structural systems are because of economic reasons pretty standart...nothing innovative.

As construciton methods change over the time, the height of indivualized supertalls rises, and their economics become better, so the definiton for supertalls from an structural point of view becomes more difficult

Maybe in 20 years well have methods to build buildings above 500 m in a standardized way like we build 100m skysrapers now.